Super Bowl in London?

[UMass922]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3065254&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- A future Super Bowl champion may someday be crowned overseas in a game witnessed predominantly by a foreign audience, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said.

"There's a great deal of interest in holding a Super Bowl in London," Goodell told reporters Monday. "So we'll be looking at that."

The commissioner said London's new Wembley Stadium would make a great candidate for pro football's biggest matchup, given the enthusiasm overseas for the game.

The NFL has been expanding its overseas presence for years by televising games around the world. It's held preseason games in numerous countries in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada, and in 2005, the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers played the first regular-season match outside the United States.

The game at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City drew the league's largest crowd to date, 103,467.

On Oct. 28, Wembley will host the first regular-season NFL game outside North America. It took just 90 minutes to sell the first 40,000 tickets for the game between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants. Goodell said event organizers have sold 95,000 tickets in all.

Goodell spoke about the possibility of a British Super Bowl after a luncheon Monday in Scottsdale sponsored by the host committee for the 2008 Super Bowl in Arizona.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

[th0m]

Don't get me wrong, being in Europe I think it'd be great to see something like this happening, but this is like having the Champions League final at Reliant Stadium. Sure it will be packed, but you're doing a disservice to your fans. Of course, the glaring difference is that with CL games actual fans go to the games as opposed to the Superbowl with that lottery system.

[WildcatFan]

If there is such a big interest how come the European football league no longer exists?

[AmsterBison]

I think it'd be kind of cool. Not sure when they'd broadcast it though - seems like to get their typical pregame in that the game wouldn't start until after midnight London time.

[th0m]

If there is such a big interest how come the European football league no longer exists?

Good question. I think there is a large enough interest to pack a single game in such a short amount of time, but not to fill a complete (albeit small) league. Also it may have to do with seeing a 'real' NFL team as opposed to a 2nd rate European NFL team.

[spelunker64]

Bad, bad, bad idea.....BAD

[Cleets]

Bad, bad, bad idea.....BAD

Bad is right, lets export everything American that makes money xnonono2x

when did the NFL become communist...

[spelunker64]

BAD

[andy7171]

Real fans don't GO to the Super Bowl. I live in a "cold weather" city with an outdoor stadium, so the big game is never coming to my town. What's the difference to me if the game is played in London, San Diego or the moon?

[spelunker64]

It's just the thought of America's #1 sport being played on foreign ground. It's just not right.


I'll never make enough to afford a ticket either...

[appfan2008]

dont like it one bit... americans support these teams all the time by filling up every stadium all year long and then we ship away the super bowl...

worse than bad... stupid!

[brownbear]

This just shows how much Goodell is focused on the money and not on the fans.

I think they should play the Super Bowl in a 100,000+ seat college stadium, which would allow more people to see the game, and then (if the NFL wasn't so greedy) you could lower the ticket prices so real fans can go instead of corporate people and celebrities.

The Super Bowl is bad enough as is. It does not need to be shipped off to another country where it can become farther away from an actual game.

[HiHiYikas]

If it were any other postseason game, it would be stupid. But the Superbowl isn't for the fans of the teams in the game, or fans in general. The teams themselves are quickly moving to the periphery of what has become a big consumerism festival with football on the side stage.

Any tourist/fan/celebrity/executive wealthy enough to actually attend the Super Bowl is probably wealthy enough to buy a ticket to London, too.

The one negative side-effect is that the tourism revenue generated for the host city will go to London instead.

[brownbear]

Why would they play in London? Cold, rainy outdoor stadium. If they wanted bad weather, they could play in Buffalo.

[89Hen]

Bad, bad, bad idea.....BAD
I think you're understating it. This is perhaps the most ridiculously bad idea I've ever seen in professional sports. xconfusedx xsmhx xnonono2x

[appfan2008]

If it were any other postseason game, it would be stupid. But the Superbowl isn't for the fans of the teams in the game, or fans in general. The teams themselves are quickly moving to the periphery of what has become a big consumerism festival with football on the side stage.

Any tourist/fan/celebrity/executive wealthy enough to actually attend the Super Bowl is probably wealthy enough to buy a ticket to London, too.

The one negative side-effect is that the tourism revenue generated for the host city will go to London instead.

maybe they could buy a ticket but i would still much rather have it in a giant college stadium... LSU? with season ticket holders from one team getting a third the tickets, season ticket holders from the other team getting a third and then all the rich folk can have the other third... it sure would be nice if actual fans could go!

[jstate83]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3065254&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- A future Super Bowl champion may someday be crowned overseas in a game witnessed predominantly by a foreign audience, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said.

"There's a great deal of interest in holding a Super Bowl in London," Goodell told reporters Monday. "So we'll be looking at that."

The commissioner said London's new Wembley Stadium would make a great candidate for pro football's biggest matchup, given the enthusiasm overseas for the game.

The NFL has been expanding its overseas presence for years by televising games around the world. It's held preseason games in numerous countries in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada, and in 2005, the Arizona Cardinals and San Francisco 49ers played the first regular-season match outside the United States.

The game at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City drew the league's largest crowd to date, 103,467.

On Oct. 28, Wembley will host the first regular-season NFL game outside North America. It took just 90 minutes to sell the first 40,000 tickets for the game between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants. Goodell said event organizers have sold 95,000 tickets in all.

Goodell spoke about the possibility of a British Super Bowl after a luncheon Monday in Scottsdale sponsored by the host committee for the 2008 Super Bowl in Arizona.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

I don't usually say thing's about what league's do but if the Superbowl is played anywhere except in the U.S. I will not watch.xnonono2x

That would be like having the English Soccor league Championship or the Australian Rugby Championship's in the U.S. xnonono2x

[jstate83]

If there is such a big interest how come the European football league no longer exists?

That league should have never been put oversea's anyway.
It was a summer league and could have flurished in the U.S. with teams being based in medium sized cities that would be considered small market regions.

Places like Birmingham, Memphis, San Antonio, Orlando, etc.
Since it is the JR. Varsity of the NFL, competition would not have been a factor.
They could have drafted players and developed them right here at home.

[GannonFan]

I don't think you'll ever see this because, as others have said, money rules football, especially the Super Bowl. With the 5 hour time difference just to the East Coast, the game would have to start at 10PM or 11PM local time to meet the same timeframe of what currently works best for TV, and TV will decide where the game is played. Until Europe becomes a bigger TV market for the Super Bowl than the US it will be played in the US.

[UMass922]

Why would they play in London? Cold, rainy outdoor stadium. If they wanted bad weather, they could play in Buffalo.

Might as well. According to my National Geographic atlas, the February temperature in London is about the same as it is in Boston. So unless they plan on somehow putting a roof on Wembley Stadium, holding the Super Bowl there would be about equivalent to holding it at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, weather-wise.

[bkrownd]

Real fans don't GO to the Super Bowl. I live in a "cold weather" city with an outdoor stadium, so the big game is never coming to my town. What's the difference to me if the game is played in London, San Diego or the moon?

And you couldn't afford the $650 tickets if it was in your home town, anyhow. More of the usual pro sports shamfest.

[bluehenbillk]

No Fun League

[HIU 93]

It's just the thought of America's #1 sport being played on foreign ground. It's just not right.


I'll never make enough to afford a ticket either...

I can afford it, but why? Most tickets go for $3,000 and up. For a football game that I can see at home for free? Even at the $650 face value, that is ridiculous. I'll keep my money and watch it for free at home.xthumbsupx

[HIU 93]

And you couldn't afford the $650 tickets if it was in your home town, anyhow.

How do you know that? I would venture to say that there are a lot of people on this board who could afford Super Bowl tickets, including Andy.

[andy7171]

And you couldn't afford the $650 tickets if it was in your home town, anyhow. More of the usual pro sports shamfest.
I mentioned my town because I wouldn't, nor would my neighbors, benefit financially from hosting a week long production the Super Bowl is.


How do you know that? I would venture to say that there are a lot of people on this board who could afford Super Bowl tickets, including Andy.
I would only think of scraping together that money if 1-my beloved Redskins were in it and 2-the SB was being played in Baltimore or DC, hell I'd even throw in Philly. But thanks to 1-Dan Snyder and 2-the NFL policiy on cold weather stadiums, I won't have to worry about that for quite some time.

[th0m]

Might as well. According to my National Geographic atlas, the February temperature in London is about the same as it is in Boston. So unless they plan on somehow putting a roof on Wembley Stadium, holding the Super Bowl there would be about equivalent to holding it at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, weather-wise.

What on earth are you talking about. Wembley HAS a roof, and a part of it is retractable, so as to let the grass grow. It is also arguably the most luxurious stadium in the world, at least for now. It will probably be rivaled by the Cowboys' new stadium.

[Dane96]

And the new Giants/Jets stadium. Liverpools new stadium, when complete...will be absolutely INSANE!

Wembley, however, is remarkeable right now...however this is the stupidest idea EVER...YES...EVER.

Yes, you will get 90k fans in the seats...but you are talking about the HEART of the Premiership season; On Sundays, which are not Super Bowl sundays, the nation is watching futbol...not football. That...will never change.

Plus, why give the local $$$ to London...when they could go to places that need it (like New Orleans)?

[brownbear]

I want to see the Super Bowl back in Atlanta, but the NFL has classified Atlanta as a cold-weather city because of the ice storm during Super Bowl XXXIV. For some reason, Detroit can get the Super Bowl and Atlanta can't.

[89Hen]

2-the NFL policiy on cold weather stadiums, I won't have to worry about that for quite some time.
Apparently that's been thrown out the door. Average temp in February in London is 40.

[GannonFan]

I want to see the Super Bowl back in Atlanta, but the NFL has classified Atlanta as a cold-weather city because of the ice storm during Super Bowl XXXIV. For some reason, Detroit can get the Super Bowl and Atlanta can't.

Well, Detroit is more capable of handling cold weather than Atlanta is - a storm like that showed it. Not Atlanta's fault, of course, they just don't normally have to deal with the cold - a cold weather city almost doesn't even notice a storm like that.

[HIU 93]

I would only think of scraping together that money if 1-my beloved Redskins were in it and 2-the SB was being played in Baltimore or DC, hell I'd even throw in Philly. But thanks to 1-Dan Snyder and 2-the NFL policiy on cold weather stadiums, I won't have to worry about that for quite some time.

I understand. I ain't paying for Super Bowl tickets PERIOD. I can watch the game on TV in the comfort of home for free. My point was that he doesn't know what anyone on this board, other than himself, can afford.

[andy7171]

Well, Detroit is more capable of handling cold weather than Atlanta is - a storm like that showed it. Not Atlanta's fault, of course, they just don't normally have to deal with the cold - a cold weather city almost doesn't even notice a storm like that.

You haven't driven in Baltimore or Washington! Maryland shuts down with 3 inches. xnodx xnodx

[UMass922]

What on earth are you talking about. Wembley HAS a roof, and a part of it is retractable, so as to let the grass grow. It is also arguably the most luxurious stadium in the world, at least for now. It will probably be rivaled by the Cowboys' new stadium.

My bad. Shows what I know.

[brownbear]

You haven't driven in Baltimore or Washington! Maryland shuts down with 3 inches. xnodx xnodx

But Atlanta shuts down on the threat of snow. We had plenty of snow days when it didn't end up snowing.

[andy7171]

But Atlanta shuts down on the threat of snow. We had plenty of snow days when it didn't end up snowing.

Yeah, that has happened once or twice up here too. Having lived in Colorado, it's just plain silly.

[Appaholic]

How about we keep the game here, but ship the halftime (yawn) show overseas?....as well as the ridiculous pre-game coverage.....and why, since college football is over during the SB, can't they hold the damn thing on Saturday so you can really enjoy the SB party without thinking about work, school, etc the next morning....xconfusedx

[brownbear]

How about we keep the game here, but ship the halftime (yawn) show overseas?....as well as the ridiculous pre-game coverage.....and why, since college football is over during the SB, can't they hold the damn thing on Saturday so you can really enjoy the SB party without thinking about work, school, etc the next morning....xconfusedx

I have always thought they should do it MLK weekend when there is a day off the next day anyway. Of course to do this, you'd have to eliminate the bye week and make the season start earlier (Labor Day weekend)

[bandl]

How about we keep the game here, but ship the halftime (yawn) show overseas?....as well as the ridiculous pre-game coverage.....and why, since college football is over during the SB, can't they hold the damn thing on Saturday so you can really enjoy the SB party without thinking about work, school, etc the next morning....xconfusedx

You'd think that the NFL would have figured this out already, seeing as how the SB is basically considered a national holiday anyways. xconfusedx

[andy7171]

How about we keep the game here, but ship the halftime (yawn) show overseas?....as well as the ridiculous pre-game coverage.....and why, since college football is over during the SB, can't they hold the damn thing on Saturday so you can really enjoy the SB party without thinking about work, school, etc the next morning....xconfusedx

Great Idea!!xthumbsupx

[footballer23]

Super Bowl + Europe = Terrible idea.

[slycat]

I want to see the Super Bowl back in Atlanta, but the NFL has classified Atlanta as a cold-weather city because of the ice storm during Super Bowl XXXIV. For some reason, Detroit can get the Super Bowl and Atlanta can't.

at least dallas can finally get the super bowl when the new stadium in finished.

[brownbear]

at least dallas can finally get the super bowl when the new stadium in finished.

Isn't the new stadium having the hole in the roof like Texas Stadium has?